They Hate Us. Have We Ever Asked Why?

An Iraq War veteran asks Americans to confront a history of intervention, civilian casualties, and the consequences of U.S. foreign policy.

We hear it constantly. "They hate America." "They chant death to America." "They want us dead." But how often do we stop to ask why?

On September 17, 2026, TikTok creator and self-described Iraq War veteran Kelsier Viltamir shared a video challenging Americans to consider that question. Drawing on his experience serving during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004, he walked through decades of American involvement in the Middle East. His argument was straightforward: Americans remember what has been done to us. We should also remember what has been done to others in our name. And much of the history he discusses is documented in our own government's records.

Watch Kelsier Viltamir's original video on TikTok

We Remember September 11. They Remember Their Dead, Too.

September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the United States. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered. The attacks left families devastated, shaped American politics, and helped launch wars whose consequences are still being felt. Twenty-five years later, the trauma remains part of our national identity.

But Americans are not the only people who remember the deaths of innocent civilians. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes, an American guided-missile cruiser operating in the Persian Gulf, shot down Iran Air Flight 655. The aircraft was a civilian passenger jet traveling from Iran to Dubai. All 290 people aboard were killed, including 66 children.

The United States Navy's own historical account acknowledges that a series of human errors led the crew to mistake the civilian aircraft for an Iranian fighter jet. In 1996, the United States reached a financial settlement with Iran, expressing deep regret over the deaths and providing compensation without formally accepting legal liability.

Imagine an Iranian warship shooting down an American passenger aircraft carrying 290 people, including 66 children. Imagine how long we would remember it. Imagine how that event might shape our perception of Iran for generations.

The circumstances of Flight 655 and September 11 were different. One was a catastrophic military mistake; the other was a deliberate terrorist attack. But the civilians who died aboard Flight 655 were no less human. And their families' grief was no less real.

Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command, H-Gram 020; International Court of Justice, 1996 Settlement

The United States Helped Overthrow Iran's Government

In 1953, the United States and Britain supported a covert operation to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh had pursued the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, bringing him into conflict with British economic interests and Western strategic priorities. The CIA and British intelligence services participated in the operation that removed him from power and strengthened the authority of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

This is not speculation. Declassified American intelligence documents confirm the operation and the involvement of the United States government.

The Shah subsequently ruled as an increasingly authoritarian monarch until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. That revolution was shaped by numerous political, religious, economic, and social forces. American involvement in the 1953 coup and support for the Shah became an enduring part of the revolutionary movement's grievances. For Americans who wonder where Iranian distrust of the United States originated, 1953 is an essential place to begin.

Source: National Security Archive, Iran 1953: State Department Releases Official History

We Supported Saddam Hussein While He Used Chemical Weapons

During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988, the United States increasingly supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This support included intelligence sharing, diplomatic assistance, and commercial relationships. At the same time, American officials knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. A declassified State Department memorandum dated November 1, 1983, describes the Iraqi government's use of chemical warfare. The United States nevertheless continued policies intended to prevent an Iranian victory.

Meanwhile, the Reagan administration also secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran, transactions later exposed in the Iran-Contra affair. Consider what that means. The United States supported Iraq despite knowledge of its chemical-weapons use while also secretly arranging arms sales to Iraq's enemy.

These were not simply unfortunate consequences discovered decades afterward. American officials were aware of the nature of the conflict and made strategic decisions within it. Decades later, Americans would be told that Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed a threat requiring military invasion. The contradictions deserve examination.

Sources: National Security Archive, Documenting Iran-U.S. Relations; U.S. State Department, History of the Iran-Contra Affair

We Invaded Iraq Over Weapons That Were Not There

In March 2003, the United States led an invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration presented Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a central justification for military action. But the weapons stockpiles alleged before the invasion were not found. The subsequent Iraq Survey Group investigation undermined the administration's principal claims about Iraq's active chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

Saddam Hussein had possessed and used chemical weapons in the past. That historical fact did not establish the existence of the stockpiles and active programs alleged in 2003.

The invasion removed Saddam Hussein from power, but it also dismantled major Iraqi state institutions, contributed to a prolonged insurgency and sectarian conflict, and created conditions exploited by extremist organizations. Al-Qaeda in Iraq emerged during the occupation and eventually evolved into the organization known as ISIS. Those outcomes had multiple causes, but the consequences of the American invasion were central to the region's subsequent instability.

American service members died. Iraqi civilians died. Families were displaced, communities fractured, and a country was transformed by war. The fact that Saddam Hussein was an authoritarian dictator does not erase the responsibility to examine the invasion's justification or its human consequences.

Source: CIA, Iraq Survey Group historical account

This Was Not One War or One Administration

American involvement in the region did not begin in 2003. In the 1950s, Washington backed regional security arrangements designed to contain Soviet influence. In 1958, American troops landed in Lebanon during a political crisis at the Lebanese president's request, demonstrating Washington's willingness to intervene militarily to protect its strategic interests.

During the 1980s, the United States supplied Afghan resistance forces fighting the Soviet occupation. That war also helped create an environment in which transnational militant networks developed, although al-Qaeda was not simply a CIA-created organization. In 1991, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a U.S.-led coalition fought the Gulf War. Iraq then endured years of sanctions, military containment, and economic hardship, with devastating consequences for parts of its civilian population.

Later conflicts and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen exposed additional populations to war, displacement, and insecurity. These events had different causes and involved different governments, local factions, foreign powers, and military objectives. They should not be reduced to one simple explanation. But neither should they be treated as isolated events with no relationship to the way people in the region understand American power.

Sources: U.S. State Department, The Baghdad Pact; Eisenhower Doctrine and Lebanon; The 9/11 Commission Report

This Is Not Just History. It Is Still Happening.

On February 28, 2026, as the United States and Israel began military operations against Iran, missiles struck two locations in southern Iran where civilians, including children, were killed. In Minab, the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school was devastated by an airstrike. Amnesty International documented the deaths of 156 people, including 120 children. An investigation by the Associated Press independently found compelling evidence of American responsibility, while preliminary U.S. military findings also implicated American forces.

The school had been separated from a neighboring military compound for years. Its civilian use was visible in publicly available imagery and records. The children inside were not combatants. They were attending school.

That same day, in Lamerd, a missile strike hit a sports complex where female volleyball players were reportedly training. Approximately 21 to 22 people were killed, including children, and many more were injured. Independent weapons analysts identified characteristics consistent with an American Precision Strike Missile. U.S. Central Command denied responsibility, leaving a significant dispute between the military's official account and independent investigations.

These incidents are not distant chapters in an American history textbook. They happened in 2026. And they demand the same questions we should have been asking for generations. Who authorized these military operations? What information was used to select the targets? What precautions were taken to protect civilians? Who will be held accountable when those precautions fail?

An attack need not be deliberately directed at civilians to raise serious questions under international humanitarian law. Military forces have an obligation to distinguish civilian objects from military targets and take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. The death of a child cannot become an acceptable footnote simply because someone describes an operation as necessary for national security.

We ask the world to remember the nearly 3,000 people murdered on September 11, 2001. We should also be willing to remember the children killed in Minab, the civilians killed in Lamerd, and the countless others whose lives have been lost in wars conducted in our name.

We cannot demand that others recognize our humanity while refusing to recognize theirs.

Sources:

• Amnesty International: Investigation into the Minab school strike, March 16, 2026
• Associated Press: Investigation into the Minab school strike
• Report on weapons evidence in the Lamerd strike, March 30, 2026
• U.S. Central Command: Statement disputing responsibility for Lamerd, March 31, 2026

Understanding Anger Is Not Endorsing Violence

None of this means that hostility toward American civilians is justified. It does not excuse terrorism, attacks on civilians, religious extremism, or abuses committed by governments in the Middle East. Nor does it erase legitimate concerns about the Iranian government's repression, its regional activities, or threats made against Americans and others. But condemning those actions does not require pretending American foreign policy has been innocent.

There is a difference between explaining why resentment exists and endorsing what someone does with that resentment. We can condemn the September 11 attacks and acknowledge the suffering caused by American military operations. We can oppose the Iranian government's abuses and recognize legitimate Iranian grievances against the United States. We can respect Americans who served in uniform while questioning the decisions that sent them to war.

These positions are not contradictory. They are necessary if we want to understand the history rather than merely defend a side.

We Have to Be Willing to Ask Why

The most important point in Viltamir's video is not that Americans should hate their country. It is that we should be willing to examine what our country has done. Patriotism should not require historical amnesia.

When we hear someone express hatred toward the United States, our first instinct may be outrage. Sometimes that outrage is warranted, especially when threats target innocent people. But outrage alone tells us very little about how that hostility developed. Understanding requires history. And history requires acknowledging what happened even when the evidence reflects poorly on our own government.

The 66 children killed aboard Flight 655 were not responsible for the actions of any government. The Iraqi family caught between American forces, insurgents, and sectarian militias did not deserve to become casualties of geopolitical strategy. The American civilians murdered on September 11 did not deserve to die because of grievances against American foreign policy. Their lives mattered independently of the governments, armies, and ideologies that claimed to act on their behalf.

Civilian lives do not become less valuable when they are on the other side of a border.

If we genuinely want fewer wars, fewer terrorist attacks, and fewer innocent people killed, then understanding the causes of conflict must matter as much as condemning its consequences. The question is not whether America is good and Iran is bad, or the reverse. The question is whether we are willing to confront the full historical record. Because if we refuse to understand what has been done in our name, how can we honestly understand why others might resent us?

Inspired by a September 17, 2026 video from Kelsier Viltamir, who describes serving in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004. The historical account above draws on publicly available government records, declassified documents, and independent historical investigations.

Watch the original TikTok video

I AM [RESIST] | Independent commentary and documented history